Premillennialism and the Westminster Confession of Faith

[Baptist-1689er]

Is premillennialism at variance with the teaching of the WCF? (I am not referring to dispensationalism, but historic premillennialism).

 

[Scott1]

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."

So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?

 

[Kevin]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

 

[Herald]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

Please be careful with the heresy label. Not every error is heresy. Heresy is a powerful word. A person who espouses heresy is a heretic, and a heretic is not a Christian.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most within the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

 

[Spinningplates2]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

Please be careful with the heresy label. Not every error is heresy. Heresy is a powerful word. A person who espouses heresy is a heretic, and a heretic is not a Christian.

I agree, I think to be fair it is usually called error. But it is so full of error that I can see how some might consider has so much wrong with it it has to be heretical.

-----Added 8/23/2009 at 11:22:04 EST-----

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

There is a rumor that the only Historic Premillennialist PCA simply claim that because they have to have some sort of Premil belief to teach at TEDS (Trinty). Just kidding, but not really.

 

[Edward]

I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)

 

[tcalbrecht]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

From the WLC:

Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.

Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?

A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.

There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

From the WLC:

Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.

Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?

A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.

There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.

Thanks. I think the teaching of a General Resurrection and General Judgment do indeed create a huge issue for Premillennialsim. So how could it be that at the Westminster Assembly there were a number of Premillennialists. It is my understanding that the prolucator of the assembly, William Twisse, was premillenarian, as were most, if not all, of the Congregationalists.

 

[bookslover]

I think, if I remember rightly, that the Westminster Standards do not take any official position regarding the three main millennial views, but that at least one of the three documents (I forget which one) takes a slightly postmil view of eschatology.

And, yes, William Twisse, the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster Assembly was historic premil.

Historic premil is one of the oldest millennial views the church has espoused. It is not an "error" (sorry Bill!) but merely one of the three eschatological views that the church has teased out of the Scriptures since the closing of the canon.

The reason many people think that the historic premil view is an error is because they get it confused with dispensationalism, which has, frankly, poisoned the well against the historic premil view since dispensationalism was invented in the early 19th century.

But, again, the historic premil view is a very old view and has always been of the three basic eschatological views.

And, one of these days, we're gonna take over! (heh, heh)

 

[AThornquist]

Great point about historic premil being one of three main views and not what should be labeled an "error," Richard. Sure, it might be an error but so is either amil or postmil. The fact that it is a minority view should not be reason for unfair consideration or labeling.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I had one conservative PCA pastor tell me that historic Pre Mil should be taken as an exception to the Confession, although it was one which was widely allowed in the PCA. (I'm Amil, and we were discussing a not so hypothetical 'hypothetical'.)

So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I think, if I remember rightly, that the Westminster Standards do not take any official position regarding the three main millennial views, but that at least one of the three documents (I forget which one) takes a slightly postmil view of eschatology.

And, yes, William Twisse, the prolocutor (moderator) of the Westminster Assembly was historic premil.

Historic premil is one of the oldest millennial views the church has espoused. It is not an "error" (sorry Bill!) but merely one of the three eschatological views that the church has teased out of the Scriptures since the closing of the canon.

The reason many people think that the historic premil view is an error is because they get it confused with dispensationalism, which has, frankly, poisoned the well against the historic premil view since dispensationalism was invented in the early 19th century.

But, again, the historic premil view is a very old view and has always been of the three basic eschatological views.

And, one of these days, we're gonna take over! (heh, heh)

Have individuals asserted a commitment to Full Confessional Subscription and also Premillennialism? If so, then how would they harmonize the teaching of a General Resurrection/Judgment in the Confession with Premillennialism?

 

[Kevin]

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most within the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

Sorry about the confussion. I meant this to be a reply to your second post & so I said "Yes". Most PCA people would consider HISTORIC pre-mil to be allowable.

In fact I have known (and served with) some that held to the Dispensational version.

Sorry that I was unclear.

 

[Scott1]

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."

So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?

I think so, and some of the other posts here would confirm that.

Remember, that each presbytery determines the fitness (call, theology, morals) of a candidate and evaluates any exceptions that might be requested. It is possible that someone emphasizing a premillennial eschatology might not be approved in a particular presbytery, but I've not heard of that.

The Westminster Standards do not say much about eschatology generally, and particularly about millennialism. Mainly, they state:

1) all men will be raised
2) all men will be judged
3) Christ will return

The clear implication is a single resurrection, or as part of the same general event.

Any hint of dispensationalism would run into possible differences with the standards in other aspects, but I think one could be premillennial, classically.
Covenant theology is consistent, and reflected through the standards.

Wisely again, the Divines were careful as some aspects of millenialism were unclear from Scripture, so they were always conscious of not binding men's conscience from things that were not clear from Scripture.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I'm not expert in the eschatological views.

It seems in the PCA one can be postmillenial, amillennial, or classical premillenialist (not modern dispensational premillennial) and subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

As you may be aware, amillennial is the majority, postmill a strong minority, and classical premillennial a very small minority. Some also combine attributes of amill and postmill and term themselves something like Mr. GI Williamson, "optimistic amillenialist" or "non-utopian postmillenialist."

So, within the PCA, while it may be the least popular, it is held to be a position consistent with the WFC. Is that right?

I think so, and some of the other posts here would confirm that.

Remember, that each presbytery determines the fitness (call, theology, morals) of a candidate and evaluates any exceptions that might be requested. It is possible that someone emphasizing a premillennial eschatology might not be approved in a particular presbytery, but I've not heard of that.

The Westminster Standards do not say much about eschatology generally, and particularly about millennialism. Mainly, they state:

1) all men will be raised
2) all men will be judged
3) Christ will return

The clear implication is a single resurrection, or as part of the same general event.

Any hint of dispensationalism would run into possible differences with the standards in other aspects, but I think one could be premillennial, classically.
Covenant theology is consistent, and reflected through the standards.

Wisely again, the Divines were careful as some aspects of millenialism were unclear from Scripture, so they were always conscious of not binding men's conscience from things that were not clear from Scripture.

I appreciate your input. I guess my question is "How would someone attempt to assert full subscription to the Confession and premillennialism concurrently?" I realize that the Confession doesn't speak directly to the millennial issue. I have heard some do so by saying that the Confession's eschatology is "minimalistic" and that the authors of the Confession were seeking to assert what must be confessed. The idea being that one could confess "much more," such as more than one resurrection/judgment and premillennialism. Has anyone heard of this type of approach before? If so is there anything in print which advocates this line of reasoning?

 

[Scott1]

Baptist-1689er
I appreciate your input. I guess my question is "How would someone attempt to assert full subscription to the Confession and premillennialism concurrently?" I realize that the Confession doesn't speak directly to the millennial issue. I have heard some do so by saying that the Confession's eschatology is "minimalistic" and that the authors of the Confession were seeking to assert what must be confessed. The idea being that one could confess "much more," such as more than one resurrection/judgment and premillennialism. Has anyone heard of this type of approach before? If so is there anything in print which advocates this line of reasoning?

Thank you.

In the PCA, a candidate is required to state and have evaluated by his presbytery any differences with any "statement or proposition" in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism).

The Westminster Standards aren't intended to cover everything, while at the same time they represent a "system of doctrine."

I believe the convenor of the Westminster Divines, Jeremiah Burroughs leaned (classical) premillennial. Here's a citation, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology By Mal Couch that says Mr. Burroughs had a premillennial view:http://books.google.com/books?id=rP...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

What the Confession states is minimal- that does not mean what it does say about eschatology or millennialism is "minimal" to the system of doctrine, only that there is not a great deal of specificity about details of eschatology in the Confession because it is not clear enough to bind men's consciences or unity on those details.

My observation is someone who would want to emphasize (classical) premillennialism would not be a good fit in the system of doctrine and would either de-emphasize it, present the other views, or move toward the other views over time. Not sure that would happen, but it would seem to be the trajectory.

The PCA in particular self-consciously is not going to emphasize or divide over millennial views beyond Christ's return, a resurrection and judgment.

 

[Archlute]

I don't really think it matters whether or not there are some modern day slobbering and crazed postmillers, or erudite and easily offended amillers who would like to assert that you can not hold strictly to the confession and be historic premil. The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

I think that any advocate of confessional subscription who would come up with a reinterpretation of our confessions in such a manner that would have ended up excluding the very founders of that confession are heading down a foolish path.

I also think they need to read a little bit more in the arena of church history, and eschatology. Chuck Hill has written a great little work on the predominantly premillennial views of the early church entitled Regnum Caelorum. That would be a great place to start. It is an historical survey with some theological analysis involved, and a very good bit of even handed scholarship. If I remember rightly, he is not even premil himself.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

I don't really think it matters whether or not there are some modern day slobbering and crazed postmillers, or erudite and easily offended amillers who would like to assert that you can not hold strictly to the confession and be historic premil. The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

I think that any advocate of confessional subscription who would come up with a reinterpretation of our confessions in such a manner that would have ended up excluding the very founders of that confession are heading down a foolish path.

I also think they need to read a little bit more in the arena of church history, and eschatology. Chuck Hill has written a great little work on the predominantly premillennial views of the early church entitled Regnum Caelorum. That would be a great place to start. It is an historical survey with some theological analysis involved, and a very good bit of even handed scholarship. If I remember rightly, he is not even premil himself.

Interesting!

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 04:49:42 EST-----[

 

[Southern Twang]

The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

Would you please give specific names?

 

[Baptist-1689er]

The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

Would you please give specific names?

William Twisse?

 

[Jon Peters]

So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?

Really? Granted I've never been much of a Boice guy (never read anything, only heard him on the radio a few times), but this is very interesting. I had no idea.

 

[Prufrock]

The fact of the matter is that there were men who actually penned our confession who not only held, but also taught, historic premillenialism in their ministries.

Would you please give specific names?

William Twisse?

I would suggest that (at the very least) caution must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to help us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine solely upon the basis of private writings of members.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

So it would be reasonable to assume that someone like the late Dr. James M. Boice, who was not only premill, but also taught a pretrib rapture and could be justifiably labeled a dispensationalist, was required to take exceptions on these points at ordination?

Really? Granted I've never been much of a Boice guy (never read anything, only heard him on the radio a few times), but this is very interesting. I had no idea.

I greatly appreicated his ministry in the word. Please consider his book "The Last and Future World" (Zondervan :1974) or his commentary on the Minor Prophets.

-----Added 8/24/2009 at 05:29:56 EST-----

Would you please give specific names?

William Twisse?

I would suggest that (at the very least) caution must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to help us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine solely upon the basis of private writings of members.

And Yet, What shall we do with all of those Congregationalists at the Assembly who were Premillennial?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

N.B. There is no record of any dissent that I could find on WLC 87-88. On occasion we know a divine believed the majority had just passed something he believed was untrue to the substance of it (i.e. not scriptural); e.g. one divine on one or two votes on Liberty of Conscience did this. Paul's point is an important one (Twisse was dead by the time the LC was drafted I think).

Would you please give specific names?

William Twisse?

I would suggest that (at the very least) caution must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to help us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine solely upon the basis of private writings of members.

Most people would say yes. I have never considered in detail how it (historic pre-mil) differs from the heretical version.

I have known RE's & deacons in the PCA that held to Dispensational pre-mil. They are a small minority in my opinion. (and mostly older)

On what basis would most wihin the PCA hold that Historic Premillennialism is inconsistent with the WFC?

From the WLC:

Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.

Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?

A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.

There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.

 

[Scott1]

I think also it is fair to say the Divines had a strong sense of the God given collective wisdom of the assembly- though their individual views might have at times varied, they really understood God was guiding through their purposed assembly. What's amazing (providential) is how much in consonance their views were, and how those were revealed in the Assembly's work.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

N.B. There is no record of any dissent that I could find on WLC 87-88. On occasion we know a divine believed the majority had just passed something he believed was untrue to the substance of it (i.e. not scriptural); e.g. one divine on one or two votes on Liberty of Conscience did this. Paul's point is an important one (Twisse was dead by the time the LC was drafted I think).

William Twisse?

I would suggest that (at the very least) caution must be used in this approach, i.e. finding members of the Assembly who held positions and affirming therefore the confessional acceptability thereof. For instance, it should be observed that Twisse (who died before the assembly finished its task) denied the imputation of the active obedience to the believer (though it should be noted that it is unclear how he would have felt about the Confession's wording of "perfect obedience"). We can use the divine's personal writings to help us understand the confessional language, but we can't assume that just because someone signed the document, their writings therefore are in complete harmony with the the Confession.

Therefore, while I offer no suggestion as to the relationship between Historic Premillenialism and the WCF, we should not assume compatibility of any doctrine solely upon the basis of private writings of members.

From the WLC:

Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?

A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust: when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the selfsame bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ. The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body; and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonor by him, as an offended judge.

Q. 88. What shall immediately follow after the resurrection?

A. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of angels and men; the day and hour whereof no man knoweth, that all may watch and pray, and be ever ready for the coming of the Lord.

There is no allowance in the Westminster Standards for a premil 1000 year period of time between the resurrection and the judgment.

Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?

 

[Scott1]

Baptist-1689er
Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?

Remember, amillennialism, for example does believe in a millennium- a realized one.

 

[Baptist-1689er]

Baptist-1689er
Therefore, one should conclude that James M. Boice and Francis Schaeffer and all the Congreagationalists at the Assembly, and the majority of the members of the PCA who believe that Millennialism is consistent with the WFC are in Error on this subject?

Remember, amillennialism, for example does believe in a millennium- a realized one.

Of Course, that is not what we are talking about, is it?